Very important. About 45 minutes spent on a concentrated internet
search
showed that 95% of the available material on COP and Efficiency,
including
by most of the professors, appears to be rather strongly fouled up.
More
than half do not clearly differentiate between COP and efficiency; in
fact,
most use the terms interchangeably, causing the creation of other
tortuous
concepts like EER, SEER, etc. Most are based on heat engines (after
all,
one definition of "thermodynamics" is "the use of heat as energy"), and
not
suitable for energy transducers (electrical power systems), particularly
any
that go to COP>1.0. Remember, the use of "heat" as "energy" is what the
Editor of American Journal of Physics, Dr. Romer, was attacking in his
editorial in AJP as a gross travesty. "Heat energy", e.g., is an
oxymoron.
Heat is scattering of energy, while energy is ordering (of itself or
some
smaller energetic subsystems, e.g.). So the term "heat energy" is
saying
"scattering ordering" and that is an oxymoron, as Dr. Romer points out
so
eloquently.

Finally I found one good website, at the College of Earth and Mineral
Sciences, PennState, from courses taught by Professor Ljubisa R. Radovic.
He has some 21 chapters of a book in pdf form there on his website,
which is
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic. Go down until you see Chap 4, in
pdf file.
That's a very clear chapter.

Anyway, here's his chap 4 for your perusal. The book is so good that I
downloaded all 21 chapters. This was the clearest thing I could find in
the
time allotted.

Obviously Professor Radovic does not know that all EM circuits are
actually
powered by energy from the vacuum due to the broken symmetry of the
opposite
charges of the source dipole, nor is he aware that the electrical
engineering model does not even include the active vacuum environment,
much
less the source dipole's broken symmetry in it --- even though that has
been
proven in particle physics for 45 years. And he is unaware of the
arbitrarily discarded Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component
surrounding every circuit, which --- when accounted --- proves that
every
generator and battery is already a COP>>1.0 energy transducer. Further,
he
is unaware that the Bohren experiment, easily performed at any
university
nonlinear optics lab, proves the existence of a huge extra nondiverged
energy flow (the Heaviside component) around every circuit and around
every
field/charge interaction. The Bohren experiment always outputs about 18
times as much energy as one inputs. But Professor Radovic has his head
screwed on real straight, and his students are fortunate to have a
professor
like him. We should have more profs like him teaching the energy stuff,
so
the young folks would not get so twisted and brainwashed by the usual
unclear mishmash.

When I find a professor like that, and clear writing like that, it
restores
my faith in science again.

We have to get across to professors like him the astounding but quite
true
fact that there is not now, and there never has been, a single
electrical
engineering department, electrical engineering professor, or electrical
engineering textbook that even knows and teaches what powers an
electrical
circuit. Hopefully my book will help make that clear as soon as we can
get
it published by World Scientific. Its target audience is those sharp
young
grad students, post doctoral scientists, and skeptical but open-minded
professors that are not dogmatic and will still read the literature,
such as
to go and see what the broken symmetry of opposite charges, applied to
the
source dipole in the generator or battery, actually implies to
electrical
engineering and to what really powers every electrical circuit ever
built.

We also have to make them aware that there have long been developed far
better electrodynamics models (the higher group symmetry EM models of
particle physics) than the more than a century old archaic and obsolete
model that the electrical engineers still use. The latter is really a
very
archaic piece of partial junk, since it erroneously assumes an inert
vacuum
environment (falsified long ago by particle physics) and a local flat
spacetime (falsified by general relativity for nearly a century,
whenever
the energy density of local spacetime changes for any reason).

It is professors like Dr. Radovic that we will need to make aware of the
history of what Lorentz-regauging did and still does to the
Maxwell-Heaviside equations, and how it arbitrarily discards all the
Maxwellian systems in disequilibrium with their active vacuum
environment,
thus quite arbitrarily discarding all the permissible Maxwellian COP>1.0
electrical power systems actually permitted by the Maxwell-Heaviside
equations before that arbitrary Lorentz regauging. We also need to make
such professors aware of what the "gauge freedom" axiom in quantum field
theory assumes: that the potential energy of an electrical system can be
freely changed at will, anytime one wishes. And one does not have to
change
the potential energy twice and symmetrically as the electrical engineers
insist on doing; it can readily be changed asymmetrically. It does not
require any work to simply potentialize a system; it only requires
potential
(voltage). Any inert system, once freely potentialized asymmetrically
with
excess potential energy and a net force field to dissipate that energy
in
translating electrons to make current in a load, is free to dissipate
the
energy as useful work in the load. So rigorously, except for a little
switching costs, one is free to asymmetrical regauge an electrical
circuit,
then dissipate that energy in a load to power it freely. That present
circuits do not do this, shows clearly that some ubiquitous feature of
the
circuit self-prevents it. And so it does. It is the rather stupid
closed
current loop circuit, back through the source dipole in the generator,
that
does it.

We also need to make such professors aware of why Lee and Yang received
the
Nobel Prize in such unprecedented haste, in 1957. They strongly
predicted
broken symmetry in 1956, Wu et al. proved it experimentally in early
1957,
and the change to physics was so profound that the Nobel Committee, in
an
almost unprecedented action, awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in
December of the same year, 1957. One of those proven broken symmetries
was
the broken symmetry of opposite charges, such as on the ends of any
source
dipole. The broken symmetry of the opposite charges of the source
dipole,
once we pay to form it in the generator or battery, then extracts EM
energy
from the vacuum and pours it out of the terminals, filling all space
around
the external circuit. Only the small Poynting component (about
10exp(-13)
of the available energy flow is intercepted and drawn into the
conductors to
power the circuit. Then half of the small Poynting energy component is
used to do nothing but drive the spent electrons back through the back
emf
of the source dipole, dissipating half the circuit's available free
energy
to destroy the source dipole. The other half is used to power the
external
circuit's loads and losses. Hence half is used to destroy the dipole
that
extracts EM energy from the vacuum to power the circuit. Less than half
is
used to power the load. We have to put in at least as much shaft energy
(100% efficient generator) to RESTORE the dipole as was used to destroy
it.
So we have to always put in more energy to restore the dipole, than we
get
out in powering of the load. Hence that stupid closed current loop
circuit
self-applies Lorentz symmetrical regauging, and prevents the system from
every exhibiting COP>1.0.

We need to make such professors aware that the Heaviside theory of EM
energy
flow considered not only the energy flow component intercepted and
caught by
the external circuit, but also that huge component in space around the
conductors that misses the circuit altogether and is just wasted. Then
we
need to make them aware that the neat little trick Lorentz invented ---
integrating the energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed
surrounding any volume element of interest --- is how the Heaviside
component was arbitrarily discarded from any further accountability.
That
energy is still there around every circuit, and is still just ignored.
The
electrical engineers no longer know how much is there, etc., but only
use
that Lorentz trick to select that little Poynting component that
actually
gets caught by the external circuit to power it.

Every battery and generator already pours out far, far more EM energy
than
the mechanical energy input to the generator or the chemical energy
dissipated in the battery. The Bohren experiment proves it, anytime,
anyplace. In a nominal case, the terminals of the generator pour out
about
10exp(13) times as much energy as was input to the shaft as mechanical
energy. And every EM circuit is and always has been powered by EM
energy
extracted directly from the vacuum by the source dipole's broken
symmetry in
the seething exchange between the vacuum and those opposite charges of
the
dipole.

The methods we spoke of today, however, are precisely the ones where we
can
prevent destroying that source dipole faster than the load is powered.
In
that case, one can certainly build a COP>1.0 electrical power system,
such
as our own motionless electromagnetic generator, including one that is
close-looped for self-powering via the thermodynamics of open systems
far
from thermodynamic equilibrium in their active (vacuum) environment.

I believe the last kind of COP versus efficiency curves we sketched out
today are what is needed to clearly show the story for all kinds of EM
power
systems, including COP<1.0, COP>1.0, and COP>>1.0. Obviously, for
self-powering (closed-loop) systems where all the energy is being freely
furnished from the active vacuum by the known broken symmetry of the
source
dipole, then the COP = infinity since any nonzero useful power output,
when
there is no operator input at all, gives a COP = infinity.

It was a pleasure to find Dr. Radovic's work there on the PennState
website
for the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Restores one's faith in
the
scientific community.